Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Premier Cruises/Archive

Evidence submitted by Barek

 * article involved:

Users have repeatedly re-inserted the same text that fails WP:NPOV into the Premier Cruise Line article. The Premier Cruises account was blocked with the reason posted to the userpage: "Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended or used for publicity and/or promotional purposes."

The Miami331131 account then was created a few hours later to make the same edits. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Yes Premier Cruise and Miami33131 is the same user. Since iam new to Wikipedia i was unaware that this was against your guide lines.

The reason why i deceided to assist with an edit of Premier Cruise Line is that it is outdated and is not factually nor cronologically correct. Furthermore Premier Cruise Line was a division of Premier Cruises which also owned Dolphin Cruise Line, Seawind Cruise Line, and the SS Rembrandt. My intentions were to assist with getting the facts right and i thought that also Premier Cruises (the holding company)deserved a page on Wikipedia.

I applogize if i violated any of your guidelines. Can you please assist to edit to make this article comply with your standards?

Furthermore, would it be appropriate for the holding company Premier Cruises to have its own space where the relationship with Premier Cruise Line, Dolphin Cruise Line and Seawind Cruise lIne can be accurately explained?

I kindly ask for the block to be lifted for Premier Cruises.

In the event that you need any additional information, just let me know.Miami33131 (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Please note that the original account was blocked by me as a username violation and will not be able to comment here unless unblocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to the accused: My block of the original account is unlikely to be overturned if you do not select a new username, as you were advised in the original blocking notice. It does not matter if the company still exists or not, the name implies representation of a group and therefore violates policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests
Requested by - Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

– Behavioral evidence clearly indicates that these accounts are the same person. No CU necessary. MuZemike 21:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Miami33131 (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)many thanks, and I appologize for the extra work I have caused you both.

I have revised the language for Premier Cruises - is there anywhere I can submit it before I launch just to make sure that i do not violate any more guidelines?Miami33131 (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
I have warned Miami33131 about potentially violating the three revert rule, as the person is on 3RR right now. I'd be willing to allow Miami33131 edit under this current account, as such username blocks are made under the premise that the person can create a new account that doesn't violate the username policy. And no, User:Premier Cruises will not be unblocked because it is a clear username violation; we do not allow role accounts on Wikipedia. Regards, MuZemike 21:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)